Genuine farm-bill reform needed

Typically, farm bills sail through Congress with wide bipartisan support. The most recent five-year, $900-billion-plus reauthorization, however, has been harder to pass than a kidney stone.

House Republicans blame the food-stamps part of HR 1947, not the lucrative crop insurance and price support programs that typically lard farm legislation. So, they came up with a ploy that in the long run could undermine both food assistance programs and farm subsidies.

This week, the House approved a "farm-only" bill. Any decisions on food stamps will come later in a separate bill. The move succeeded in attracting conservative lawmakers who had opposed the farm bill because it required spending money on food stamps and other nutritional programs.

However, the 216-208 party-line vote only fueled political rancor.

Gone is the historic bipartisanship that brought both rural and urban interests together and ensured easy passage of important legislation. In its place now is the partisan acrimony that leaves both crop subsidies and food stamps vulnerable as stand-alone political footballs.

The House's quick-fix has little chance of Senate passage. Influential farm organizations, like the American Farm Bureau Federation, oppose the split. So too do some conservative groups, most notably The Club For Growth. The White House also was quick to issue a veto threat if the bill ends up on the president's desk.

Left amid the gridlock is the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that provides less than $700 a month in food-stamp benefits to a struggling family of four.

House Republicans think SNAP is too expensive. Last month, they thought they had a deal — and the votes — to pass HR 1947, which contained $21 billion in cuts over 10 years to the food stamp program. Those cuts would have kicked nearly 2 million people off the rolls.

For a state like Florida, where an estimated 3.6 million persons rely on food stamps, the House cuts would be devastating. The better alternative is in the Senate bill, which proposes a more manageable $4.1 billion cut over 10 years and was approved by a bipartisan vote.

In the House, HR 1947 faced a perfect storm of opposition. A majority of Republicans wanted deeper reductions in the food stamp program, while Democrats balked at the program cuts already on the table. The result? A stinging 195-234 loss that left House leaders looking inept and ill-equipped to pass what normally is easy legislation.

Demonizing the food stamp program is easy. Almost 80 percent of the farm bill's budget goes to the food-assistance program and, unlike the remaining 20 percent that subsidizes farmers and large agricultural interests, food stamps have few powerful champions in the halls of Congress.

How else to explain why lucrative subsidies that benefit the likes of Archer Daniels Midland, Florida Crystals and Monsanto — even sushi rice growers and catfish farmers — hardly raise an eyebrow in Congress, while debit cards that help feed low-income and working class families prompt outrage?

Congress has until Sept. 30 to approve a new farm bill. Unfortunately, this week's quick-fix in the House makes it more difficult for lawmakers to craft genuine reform in a bill that reins in the cost of farm subsidies, while sparing draconian cuts to the food stamps program.